Inclusion in the university: Who assumes responsibility? A qualitative study.

Society challenges higher education institutions and their members to generate inclusive communities to enable the full development of all members. This study aims to analyze who is responsible for generating inclusion according to community members from a traditional Chilean University. We carried out qualitative research based on the Grounded Theory. We collected data through focus group and semi-structured Interviews, involving 14 undergraduate students, two post-graduate students, 17 faculty members, five non-teaching staff members, and nine executives officers. All of thembelonging to the three campuses of the University. We analyzed data using ATLAS.ti 7.5.7, using the constant comparison method and reaching an axial codification level. From the data analysis, 25 subcategories emerged, grouped into six categories. Later we organized them under the codification paradigm. Results highlighted the perception of the interaction and influence of the social, institutional, and personal fields in the inclusion phenomenon. Also, that inclusive practices must be a responsibility shared among different educational community members.

Inclusion at universities: Psychometric properties of an inclusive management scale as perceived by students.

INTRODUCTION: During the last century, the inclusion of all kinds of diversity became a social imperative in all social spaces but above all in some institutions such as the educational ones. Among these, inclusion has been least studied in the tertiary education organizations. This communication proposes and evaluates the psychometric properties of a new instrument, named Inclusive Management in Tertiary Institutions Scale (IMTIS), to assess inclusive management in universities. METHOD: The researchers used a quantitative research model through survey. We based on the Index for Inclusion to design the IMTIS. We first submitted it to the assessment of experts. Then we applied the resulting version in an online survey including a sample of 1557 students from two universities and 121 different undergraduate careers. A panel of experts judged the content validity of the instrument. Participants answered the IMTIS after informed consent. We used confirmatory factor analysis to assess the construct validity of the instrument. We also evaluated the reliability of the measurements. RESULTS: From a kit of 33 originally proposed items, we obtained a version of 22 items with CVR between 0.60 and 1.00, and a IVC = 0.78. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the six-factor solution had a better adjustment than the one and three factors solutions (RMSEA = 0.059; CFI = 0.947; TLI = 0.937). The McDonald ω coefficients were between 0.864 and 0.922. CONCLUSION: The results deliver evidence that supports the validity and reliability of the IMTIS measurements to carry out research and diagnosis of inclusive management in higher education institutions.